EA shares have gained 22% in the past month, we believe, due partly to speculation that the company is interested in being acquired. We think EA would make an unlikely takeover candidate because of the variability of its earnings, which depends largely on a few top-selling games. We think the chance of success on new titles will become more difficult over time, given the decline in the sales of console games. The number of Star Wars subscribers has been falling, and we are concerned that more cancellations may cause EA to terminate the game due to its high costs.

Expect a deeper price sink of EA stock now. Guess S&P still has some competent people after all.

(Holy thread derail Batman!)

I think what ultimately is killing is EA and other companies is the stagnation of many of the game IPs. You have countless sequel after sequel or yearly iterations that don't add thing new. You hardly ever see them taking a chance to develop a original or unique IP. The only time you see any type of experiments in gameplay is from the indie developers as of late.

SWTOR is going F2P by the end of the year. The truth is it will probably earn more money as a F2P than a subscription game.

ASeven wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 15:27:Someone with both D2 and D3, can you guys confirm the rumors I've been constantly hearing for a while now, that D2 multiplayer has more players playing in the majority of the day than D3 on the whole?

I could install D2 quick and check, but since there is no global player counter for either of them it would just be a poor guess.

Ah ok, thought there was an easy way to check. Disregarding any rumors then.

EA shares have gained 22% in the past month, we believe, due partly to speculation that the company is interested in being acquired. We think EA would make an unlikely takeover candidate because of the variability of its earnings, which depends largely on a few top-selling games. We think the chance of success on new titles will become more difficult over time, given the decline in the sales of console games. The number of Star Wars subscribers has been falling, and we are concerned that more cancellations may cause EA to terminate the game due to its high costs.

Expect a deeper price sink of EA stock now. Guess S&P still has some competent people after all.

ASeven wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 15:27:Someone with both D2 and D3, can you guys confirm the rumors I've been constantly hearing for a while now, that D2 multiplayer has more players playing in the majority of the day than D3 on the whole?

I could install D2 quick and check, but since there is no global player counter for either of them it would just be a poor guess.

Ah ok, thought there was an easy way to check. Disregarding any rumors then.

True enough. I guess the problem I have, and maybe others have, with Diablo 3 is that it is just more of the same. Maybe we burnt our of the genre before D3 hit the playing field and since it didn't bring anything new to the table our expectations fell flat on their faces. Maybe the game just isn't for our generation as if you'd played any other ARPG for a great length of time, you don't need to play D3.

That's probably part of it. I was in high school the first time I played Diablo, was in my senior year when Diablo 2 was released. I loved the game back then, it was all I played, hell I almost failed a few classes because of the game. That was 12 years ago, the game industry has changed, we've changed as gamers, and while the ARPG genre isn't dead by any means, they're not the style of games that I make a priority for anymore. That is also not to say that I didn't get enjoyment out of D3, I logged nearly 150 hours into it before I gave it up, made some of the box price back in RMAH sales, I would say it was well worth the purchase, but it's not something that I'll continue to play the same way I did when I was teenager playing Diablo 2, but then again neither is Torchlight 2 nor Path of Exile.

ASeven wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 15:27:Someone with both D2 and D3, can you guys confirm the rumors I've been constantly hearing for a while now, that D2 multiplayer has more players playing in the majority of the day than D3 on the whole?

I could install D2 quick and check, but since there is no global player counter for either of them it would just be a poor guess.

True enough. I guess the problem I have, and maybe others have, with Diablo 3 is that it is just more of the same. Maybe we burnt our of the genre before D3 hit the playing field and since it didn't bring anything new to the table our expectations fell flat on their faces. Maybe the game just isn't for our generation as if you'd played any other ARPG for a great length of time, you don't need to play D3.

Agent.X7 wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 14:33:I didn't even realize that they were going to do Fallout 4. I mean, after New Vegas, I kind of figured they'd follow that naming convention. Fallout: Bean Town. Fallout: New New York. Fallout: We're milking this shit dry!

I don't know why, but I'm not really too excited by this. Hopefully they update the engine in a major way. I'd love to see a full remake of the first one.

FO:NV was sort of a spin-off so I'm not surprised they went back to numbered releases.

If you want a redo of Fallout 1 then you should probably look at Wasteland 2 when it comes out.

Verno wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 14:45:The Diablo 3 1.04 details have been updated yet again, now there is apparently paragon levels which start at 1 when a player reaches level 60 and goes all the way to 100. It gives 3% MF/GF per level and will take roughly 300,000,000 EXP to hit 100. That's their endgame solution apparently. Not sure how I feel about it yet.

No word on bindable items yet so I hope that was just a silly rumor.

Paragon Levels, much like this comment, gives an impression of hasty and not well thought out. If anything, it just points out the futility of playing the game as all your are doing is filling a meter that increases your ability to farm and gives you some stats. Leveling is not fun just for the sake of leveling otherwise ProgressQuest would dominate the gaming industry. Paragon Levels would need to be more substantial with either new abilities, runes or passives. Why do I want to grind more? Also, what will be the effect of Paragon Levels in PvP when you finally get around to releasing it?

At least Rift made their "Paragon Levels" have a few useful abilities thrown, if not much better than this. Wait. Did you guys just copy Rift here? Usually, when you blatantly copy something, at least try and make it better or your own in some way. Otherwise you are no better than Zynga.

Except ProgressQuest is satire.

Diablo and Diablo 2 were Autism Farming Simulator. Diablo 3 is Autism Farming Simulator. That is the point of those games. Farm gear, get more powerful, farm more gear. Do it ad nauseum with new characters. I really don't know why people were expecting something different. At its most basic level that is what the ARPG genre is, it does not matter if it is Diablo or Titan Quest or Torchlight, they're all just Autism Farming Simulator in different skins. If you want something different, find a different genre.

I'm kinda torn, I agree with JayW on needing to transition GF/MF off gear but its their own damn fault due to the way itemized gear and made skills rely on weapon damage in this game. I do think that there should be something to earn as you continue past 60 but I'm not sure if quasi-levels are the right thing. I think the bigger issue is that it doesn't solve the longer term problem in lack of character customization. As you mentioned, I wonder how it will affect PvP as well since doling out attributes in addition to GF/MF will mean balance issues. To be honest though if they let you bring in purchased items into PvP then they don't care about balance in the first place.

Verno wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 14:45:The Diablo 3 1.04 details have been updated yet again, now there is apparently paragon levels which start at 1 when a player reaches level 60 and goes all the way to 100. It gives 3% MF/GF per level and will take roughly 300,000,000 EXP to hit 100. That's their endgame solution apparently. Not sure how I feel about it yet.

No word on bindable items yet so I hope that was just a silly rumor.

Paragon Levels, much like this comment, gives an impression of hasty and not well thought out. If anything, it just points out the futility of playing the game as all your are doing is filling a meter that increases your ability to farm and gives you some stats. Leveling is not fun just for the sake of leveling otherwise ProgressQuest would dominate the gaming industry. Paragon Levels would need to be more substantial with either new abilities, runes or passives. Why do I want to grind more? Also, what will be the effect of Paragon Levels in PvP when you finally get around to releasing it?

At least Rift made their "Paragon Levels" have a few useful abilities thrown, if not much better than this. Wait. Did you guys just copy Rift here? Usually, when you blatantly copy something, at least try and make it better or your own in some way. Otherwise you are no better than Zynga.

Verno wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 14:45:The Diablo 3 1.04 details have been updated yet again, now there is apparently paragon levels which start at 1 when a player reaches level 60 and goes all the way to 100. It gives 3% MF/GF per level and will take roughly 300,000,000 EXP to hit 100. That's their endgame solution apparently. Not sure how I feel about it yet.

No word on bindable items yet so I hope that was just a silly rumor.

It's nice that they're making a concerted effort, but really this is all stuff that should have been part of the game at launch. I might poke around a bit when 1.04 does come out, but I doubt I'll pick up the game as a mainstay again until the inevitable expansion, especially with Guild Wars 2 early access starting in 4 days, 12 hours, 1 minute, and 9 seconds.

The Diablo 3 1.04 details have been updated yet again, now there is apparently paragon levels which start at 1 when a player reaches level 60 and goes all the way to 100. It gives 3% MF/GF per level and will take roughly 300,000,000 EXP to hit 100. That's their endgame solution apparently. Not sure how I feel about it yet.

I didn't even realize that they were going to do Fallout 4. I mean, after New Vegas, I kind of figured they'd follow that naming convention. Fallout: Bean Town. Fallout: New New York. Fallout: We're milking this shit dry!

I don't know why, but I'm not really too excited by this. Hopefully they update the engine in a major way. I'd love to see a full remake of the first one.

Silicon Avatar wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 11:39:Eh.. I was hoping FO4 would go west.

Also this rumor sounds shaky.

I'd still like to see what they can do with the new engine. I was always mad they didn't do a DLC to cover the android base they hinted at in FO3 so if they actually do cover that then I guess Boston is okay.

I'd like to see them go outside the US.

I guess it could be done. The US's anti-communist propaganda and 1950's era jingoism is baked into the setting though. It would feel like a different series..

Yeah, in that case the only other setting that would make sense would be Korea or Germany, somewhere where there was a sharp division between the West and communism.

Silicon Avatar wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 11:39:Eh.. I was hoping FO4 would go west.

Also this rumor sounds shaky.

I'd still like to see what they can do with the new engine. I was always mad they didn't do a DLC to cover the android base they hinted at in FO3 so if they actually do cover that then I guess Boston is okay.

I'd like to see them go outside the US.

I guess it could be done. The US's anti-communist propaganda and 1950's era jingoism is baked into the setting though. It would feel like a different series..

Blizzard never been a great innovator in any sense of the word, but they had a talent for taking a genre and really polishing it up till it shined. Diablo 3 for all its shininess, it a large step back in a number of areas which gives credence to Brevik's words. It didn't have the Blizzard polish or their progression. They were starting fresh and had no clue what they were doing or what worked.

Warcraft 1 was a little shaky. WC2 was a more polished version of it with the lessons they learned. Diablo 1 was a little shaky. D2 was the same level of polish and progression with new tech thrown in. Starcraft 1 was fantastic. SC2 was the same formula. Write a new story, polish and tweak the game play and tech, but don't really do anything unique. WoW was EQ but with WC's story line and done friendlier and with better systems/features.

Warcraft 3 was the only real innovation I saw from Blizzard (unless they took the Hero/Level mechanic from another title I'm not remembering) where they took the time to deliver a unique experience that was unlike anything before. Everything since then has either died in development or has been the same thing we've already seen, just a few steps forward.

Blizzard is a solid developer. They just need to keep the egos in check and focus on building skill and experience. Something I imagine that is harder to due since the Activision merger.

Curious too see how Titan turns out. Something new and genre changing? Or just a polish of something we've seen before.

Cutter wrote on Aug 20, 2012, 13:08:Fuck D3, Actiblizz an the horse they rode in on alreaady.

There may be some merit to the Boston setting as a tie-in to OWB. I love Boston, one of my fave towns, but it seems to me that NYC would be the natch place to do it and give a nod to The Omega Man. Hope to fuck this game isn't that far out before we see it.

Imagine how much flak they'd get for having to miniaturize NYC for console memory requirements though. Boston at least 'fits to scale'. Gotta wait until Fallout 7 or so before we're lucky enough that the LCD can fit Times Square in one map load...

Well it's not like they'd be doing the entire city to scale. It'd be the same as Warshington where you've got sections of it that relate to the game. Still it's be pretty effin' cool to have all of Manhattan to explore and hunt in ala Teh Omega Man.

“That's it. You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!”